JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hassan Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, recommending that the revisionist filed by Jagdish Prasad against the order dated 2-2-1970 passed by Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Gonda in case no. 8 under section 194 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts may be briefly state here. The Tahsildar, gonda, by his order dated 12-7-68 in a succession case No. 852/61 reported to the Sub-Divisional Officer that Brij Prasad, son of Sri Ram, recorded bhumidhar and sirdar of certain plots in village Kadwalia had died heirless and that his land may be vested in the Gaon Samaj, a proclamation under rule 122 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Two persons, Srimati Jasodra and Jagdish Prasad filed objections claiming succession as sister of the decreased and the nephew of the deceased respectively. Subsequently, Srmiati Jasodra did not contest the case. On 2-2-1070 the trial court ordered that the property will vest in the Gaon Sabha as Brij Prasad had died heirless and Jagdish Prasad was neither the nephew not heir of the decease. Jagdish Prasad has now come in revision against this order. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial court has erred materially in not property following the procedure prescribed under section 194, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He has also contended that the trial court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in law in deciding the case against the revisionist when there was a bona fide question of title involved. He further argued that the trial court has not properly considered and appreciated the evidence in the case. The learned District Government counsel appearing on the behalf of the State and the Gaon Sabha hos contested these grounds. 5. He further argued that the trial court has not properly considered and appreciated the evidence in the case. The learned District Government counsel appearing on the behalf of the State and the Gaon Sabha hos contested these grounds. 5. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist the procedure for proceedings under Section 194, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has been provided in Rule 122, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules which reads as follows:3 "178(1) An application under Section 194 for declaration of the extension of tenure holders rights shall be filed in the court of the Assistant Collector incharge of the Sub-Division by land Management Committee in whose local jurisdiction the extinction has occurred where on the application of Land Management Committee or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, the Assistant Collector is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for declaration of the extinction of the tenure-holder's right under Sec. 194, he shall issue a proclamation in Z.A. Form 57 and where the tenure-holder in alive, a copy of the proclamation shall be served on his on person asking him to show cause why the declaration question should not be granted. (2) The Assistant Collector shall, on the date fixed in the proclamation, and after personal service if required, has been affected, proceed to make such enquiry as he deems necessary. (3) If after inquiry, he comes to the conclusion that a declaration in favour of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management committee) should be made, he shall make a declaration to that effect and specify the numbers of the plots with their respective areas of which the committee is entitle to take possession. The possession shall then be delivered to the committee on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 154." A perusal of the trial court's recorded shows that the above procedure has been duly followed. A copy of the proclamation issued in Z.A. Form 57 is on record and it was duly served on both the revisionist and Srimati Jasodra as well as on the Pradha. It would appear that delivery of possession of the land in dispute has not yet been done to the Land Management Committee in accordance with a rule 154, U.P.A.Z. and L.R. Rules but this can be done after the disposal of the present revision. It would appear that delivery of possession of the land in dispute has not yet been done to the Land Management Committee in accordance with a rule 154, U.P.A.Z. and L.R. Rules but this can be done after the disposal of the present revision. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. 6. As regards the second contention that there was a bona fide question of title involved, the correct legal position is that proceedings under section-194 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are quite different from proceeding Section 122-B or section 198(3) of the Act. In proceedings under Section 198, any person filing an objection to the proclamation would naturally claim a bona fide question of title. This, however, would not in any way, take away the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer. On the other hand, the sub-Divisional Officer is quite competent to adjudicate the question of title either in favour of the Land Management Committee or in favour of the objector or any other person. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel is not maintainable. 7. As regards the learned counsel's argument that the trail court had not properly considered the material evidence on record, I have personal looked into the evidence on record. The revisionist in is objection on 1-5-69 filed before the trial court has claimed succession alleging that he was nephew (brother's son) or the deceased Brij Prasad. However, in his cross-examination recorded by the trial court on 7-1-70 he had himself deposed on oath that he was the grandson of one Bhagwat. This Bhagwat had two others brothers, Sri Ram and Sheo Paltan, and Brij Prasad was the son of Sri Ram. In other words, according to his own admission the revisionist is the grandson of the father's brother of the decease. The trial court has thus rightly held that the revisionist was not the nephew (brother's son) of the deceased. Under section 189, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act the interest of the bhumidhar in his holding shall be extinguished when he dies leaving no heir and title in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under section 190 of the Act the interest of a sirdar shall be similarly extinguished. Under section 189, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act the interest of the bhumidhar in his holding shall be extinguished when he dies leaving no heir and title in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under section 190 of the Act the interest of a sirdar shall be similarly extinguished. The order of succession provided in section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act includes brothers' son, the brother having been son of the same as the decease in category (i)brother's sons' son in category (p) father's son in category (q) and father's son in category (r). The revisionist does not fall in any of these categories. He would be, according to his own statement, at best father's son, but such a distant relating relation ship has been given no right to succession under the act. Since the revisionist cannot claim any place in the order of succession in accordance with law, his possession even if proved, shall be of no consequence. The trial court rightly, therefore, ordered the revisionist's ejectment. 8. There result is that I find no force in this revision and hereby dismiss it.